[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 137 (Wednesday, July 21, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 38433-38444]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-15395]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2021-0215; FRL-8696-01-R6]


Air Plan Approval; Louisiana; Regional Haze Five-Year Progress 
Report State Implementation Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act), the 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a 
revision to a State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the 
Secretary of the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) 
on March 25, 2021. The SIP submittal addresses requirements of federal 
regulations that direct the State to submit a periodic report that 
assesses progress toward regional haze reasonable progress goals (RPGs) 
and includes a determination of adequacy of the existing implementation 
plan.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before August 20, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-2021-
0215, at https://www.regulations.gov or via email to 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#67001506031e490d060a02142702170649000811"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="91f6e3f0f5e8bffbf0fcf4e2d1f4e1f0bff6fee7">[email protected]</span></a>. Follow the online instructions for submitting 
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from 
Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public 
docket. Do not submit any information electronically that is considered 
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or any other information whose 
disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, 
video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written 
comment is considered the official comment with multimedia submissions 
and should include all discussion points desired. The EPA will 
generally not consider comments or their contents located outside of 
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing 
systems). For additional submission methods, please contact James E. 
Grady, (214) 665-6745, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#4b2c392a2f3265212a262e380b2e3b2a652c243d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="395e4b585d40175358545c4a795c4958175e564f">[email protected]</span></a>. For the full EPA public 
comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and 
general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available 
electronically at www.regulations.gov. While all documents in the 
docket are listed in the index, some information may not be publicly 
available due to docket file size restrictions or content (e.g., CBI).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James E. Grady, EPA Region 6 Office, 
Regional Haze and SO<INF>2</INF> Section, 1201 Elm Street, Suite 500, 
Dallas TX 72570, 214-665-6745; <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c0a7b2a1a4b9eeaaa1ada5b380a5b0a1eea7afb6"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="9cfbeefdf8e5b2f6fdf1f9efdcf9ecfdb2fbf3ea">[email protected]</span></a>. Out of an abundance 
of caution for members of the public and our staff, the EPA Region 6 
office will be closed to the public to reduce the risk of transmitting 
COVID-19. We encourage the public to submit comments via https://www.regulations.gov, as there will be a delay in processing mail and no 
courier or hand deliveries will be accepted. Please call or email the 
contact listed above if you need alternative access to material indexed 
but not provided in the docket.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' or 
``our'' mean ``the EPA.''

Table of Contents

I. Background
    A. The Regional Haze Program
    B. Previous Actions on Louisiana Regional Haze
    C. Louisiana's Regional Haze Progress Report SIP
II. Evaluation of Louisiana's Regional Haze Progress Report SIP 
Revision
    A. Class I Areas
    B. Status of Implementation of Measures
    1. Non-EGU Controls
    a. Phillips 66--Alliance Refinery
    b. Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC
    c. Eco Services Operations Corp.
    2. EGU Controls
    a. NRG Big Cajun II
    b. Cleco--Brame Energy Center
    c. Entergy--Willow Glen
    d. Entergy--Little Gypsy
    e. Entergy--Ninemile Point
    f. Entergy--Waterford 1 and 2
    g. Entergy--Michoud
    h. Entergy--Nelson
    3. CAIR and CSAPR
    4. Smoke Management Plan (SMP)
    5. Additional Federal Measures
    6. EPA's Conclusion on the Status of Implementation of Measures
    C. Emission Reductions From Implementation of Measures
    D. Visibility Conditions and Changes
    E. Emission Tracking
    F. Assessment of Changes Impeding Visibility Progress
    G. Assessment of Current Strategy To Meet RPGs
    H. Review of Visibility Monitoring Strategy
    I. Determination of Adequacy of Existing Implementation Plan
    J. Consultation With Federal Land Managers
III. EPA's Proposed Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

[[Page 38434]]

I. Background

A. The Regional Haze Program

    Regional haze is visibility impairment that occurs over a wide 
geographic area primarily from the pollution of fine particulates 
(PM<INF>2.5</INF>) \1\ emitted into the air from a variety of sources. 
These fine particulates which cause haze consist of sulfates 
(SO<INF>4</INF><SUP>2-</SUP>), nitrates (NO<INF>3</INF><SUP>-</SUP>), 
organic carbon (OC), elemental carbon (EC), and soil dust.\2\ 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> precursors consist of sulfur dioxide (SO<INF>2</INF>), 
nitrogen oxides (NO<INF>X</INF>), ammonia (NH<INF>3</INF>), and 
volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Airborne PM<INF>2.5</INF> can 
scatter and absorb the incident light and, therefore, lead to 
atmospheric opacity and horizontal visibility degradation which limits 
visual distance and reduces color, clarity, and contrast of view. 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> can cause serious adverse health effects and mortality 
in humans. It also contributes to environmental effects such as acid 
deposition and eutrophication. Emissions that affect visibility include 
a wide variety of natural and man-made sources. Natural sources can 
include windblown dust from dust storms and soot from wildfires. Man-
made sources can include major and minor stationary sources, mobile 
sources, and area sources. Reducing PM<INF>2.5</INF> and its precursor 
gases in the atmosphere is an effective method of improving visibility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Fine particles are less than or equal to 2.5 microns 
([micro]m) in diameter and usually form secondary in nature 
indirectly from other sources. Particles less than or equal to 10 
[micro]m in diameter are referred to as PM<INF>10</INF>. Particles 
greater than PM<INF>2.5</INF> but less than PM<INF>10</INF> are 
referred to as coarse mass. Coarse mass can contribute to regional 
haze as well and is made up of primary particles directly emitted 
into the air. Fine particles tend to be man-made, while coarse 
particles tend to originate from natural events like wildfires and 
dust storms. Coarse mass settles out from the air more rapidly than 
fine particles and usually will be found relatively close to 
emission sources. Fine particles can be transported long distances 
by wind and can be found in the air thousands of miles from where 
they were formed.
    \2\ Organic carbon (OC) can be emitted directly as particles or 
formed through reactions involving gaseous emissions. Elemental 
carbon (EC), in contrast to organic carbon, is exclusively of 
primary origin and emitted by the incomplete combustion of carbon-
based fuels. Elemental carbon particles are especially prevalent in 
diesel exhaust and smoke from wild and prescribed fires.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Data from the existing visibility monitoring network, ``Interagency 
Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments'' (IMPROVE), shows that 
visibility impairment caused by air pollution occurs virtually all of 
the time at most national parks and wilderness areas. In 1999, the 
average visual range \3\ in many Class I areas (i.e., national parks 
and memorial parks, wilderness areas, and international parks meeting 
certain size criteria) in the western United States was 100-150 
kilometers (km), or about one-half to two-thirds of the visual range 
that would exist under estimated natural conditions.\4\ In most of the 
eastern Class I areas of the United States, the average visual range 
was less than 30 km, or about one-fifth of the visual range that would 
exist under estimated natural conditions. CAA programs have reduced 
emissions of some haze-causing pollution, lessening some visibility 
impairment, and resulting in partially improved average visual 
ranges.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Visual range is the greatest distance, in km or miles, at 
which a dark object can be viewed against the sky by a typical 
observer.
    \4\ 64 FR 35715 (July 1, 1999).
    \5\ An interactive ``story map'' depicting efforts and recent 
progress by EPA and states to improve visibility at national parks 
and wilderness areas may be visited at: http://arcg.is/29tAbS3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In section 169A of the 1977 CAA Amendments, Congress created a 
program for protecting visibility in the nation's national parks and 
wilderness areas. This section of the CAA establishes as a national 
goal the prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing, 
visibility impairment in mandatory Class I Federal areas where 
impairment results from manmade air pollution.\6\ Congress added 
section 169B to the CAA in 1990 that added visibility protection 
provisions, and the EPA promulgated final regulations addressing 
regional haze as part of the 1999 Regional Haze Rule, which was most 
recently updated in 2017.\7\ The Regional Haze Rule revised the 
existing 1980 visibility regulations and established a more 
comprehensive visibility protection program for Class I areas. The 
requirements for regional haze, found at 40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309, are 
included in the EPA's broader visibility protection regulations at 40 
CFR 51.300 through 51.309. The regional haze regulations require states 
to demonstrate reasonable progress toward meeting the national goal of 
a return to natural visibility conditions for mandatory Class I Federal 
areas both within and outside states by 2064. The CAA requirement in 
section 169A(b)(2) to submit a regional haze SIP applies to all fifty 
states, the District of Columbia, and the Virgin Islands. States were 
required to submit the first implementation plan addressing visibility 
impairment caused by regional haze no later than December 17, 2007.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Mandatory Class I Federal areas consist of national parks 
exceeding 6,000 acres, wilderness areas and national memorial parks 
exceeding 5,000 acres, and all international parks that were in 
existence on August 7, 1977. The EPA, in consultation with the 
Department of Interior, promulgated a list of 156 areas where 
visibility was identified as an important value. The extent of a 
mandatory Class I area includes subsequent changes in boundaries, 
such as park expansions. Although states and tribes may designate 
additional areas as Class I, the requirements of the visibility 
program set forth in the CAA applies only to ``mandatory Class I 
Federal areas.'' Each mandatory Class I Federal area is the 
responsibility of a ``Federal Land Manager.'' When the term ``Class 
I area'' is used in this action, it means ``mandatory Class I 
Federal areas.'' [See 44 FR 69122, November 30, 1979 and CAA 
Sections 162(a), 169A, and 302(i)].
    \7\ See the July 1, 1999 Regional Haze Rule final action (64 FR 
35714), as amended on July 6, 2005 (70 FR 39156), October 13, 2006 
(71 FR 60631), June 7, 2012 (77 FR 33656) and on January 10, 2017 
(82 FR 3079).
    \8\ See 40 CFR 51.308(b). The EPA's regional haze regulations 
require subsequent updates to the regional haze SIPs. 40 CFR 
51.308(g)-(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 169A(b)(2)(A) of the CAA directs states to evaluate the use 
of Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) controls at certain 
categories of existing major stationary sources \9\ built between 1962 
and 1977. These large, often under-controlled, older stationary sources 
are required to procure, install, and operate BART controls to address 
visibility impacts from them. Under the Regional Haze Rule, any of 
these BART-eligible sources \10\ that are reasonably anticipated to 
cause or contribute to visibility impairment in a Class I area are 
determined to be subject-to-BART.\11\ States are directed to conduct 
BART determinations for each source classified as subject-to-BART. 40 
CFR 51.308(e)(1)(ii)(A) requires states (or EPA in the case of a FIP) 
to identify the level of control representing BART after considering 
the five statutory factors set out in CAA section 169A(g)(2). States 
must establish emission limits, a schedule of compliance, and other 
measures consistent with the BART determination process for each source 
subject-to-BART. In lieu of requiring source-specific BART controls, 
states also have the flexibility to adopt alternative measures, as long 
as the alternative provides greater reasonable progress toward 
improving visibility

[[Page 38435]]

than BART. Namely, the alternative must be ``better than BART.'' \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See 42 U.S.C. 7491(g)(7) (listing the set of ``major 
stationary sources'' potentially subject-to-BART).
    \10\ See 40 CFR 51 Appendix Y, II. How to Identify BART-eligible 
Sources.
    \11\ Under the BART Guidelines, states may select a visibility 
impact threshold, measured in deciviews (dv), below which a BART-
eligible source would not be expected to cause or contribute to 
visibility impairment in any Class I area. The state must document 
this threshold in the SIP and state the basis for its selection of 
that value. Any source with visibility impacts that model above the 
threshold value would be subject to a BART determination review. The 
BART Guidelines acknowledge varying circumstances affecting 
different Class I areas. States should consider the number of 
emission sources affecting the Class I areas at issue and the 
magnitude of the individual sources' impacts. Any visibility impact 
threshold set by the state should not be higher than 0.5 dv. See 40 
CFR 51, Appendix Y, section III.A.1.
    \12\ The required content of BART alternative measures is 
codified at 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Previous Actions on Louisiana Regional Haze

    LDEQ submitted its initial regional haze SIP on June 13, 2008, to 
address the requirements of the first regional haze implementation 
period. EPA acted on the 2008 regional haze SIP submittal in two 
separate actions. The first EPA action on the 2008 regional haze SIP 
was a limited disapproval \13\ based on the June 7, 2012, revision to 
the Regional Haze Rule and deficiencies arising from a remand of the 
Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 
District of Columbia. The remand affected LDEQ's source specific EGU 
BART requirements for SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> because the 
2008 Louisiana Regional Haze SIP relied on participation in CAIR as an 
alternative to meet the EGU SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> BART 
requirements.\14\ It was determined in the June 7, 2012, rule revision 
that CSAPR would provide for greater reasonable progress than BART, so 
that allowed CSAPR participation to be used as a BART alternative to 
source-specific SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> BART for EGUs, on a 
pollutant-specific basis.\15\ LDEQ established reliance upon CSAPR for 
ozone (O<INF>3</INF>) season NO<INF>X</INF> as an alternative to meet 
the NO<INF>X</INF> BART requirements for their EGU sources and the 
State addressed SO<INF>2</INF> and PM BART requirements for EGUs in 
separate submittals, as described in subsequent paragraphs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 77 FR 33642 (June 7, 2012).
    \14\ 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4) (2006).
    \15\ 77 FR 33642, 33656 (June 7, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 3, 2012, EPA issued a second action on the 2008 Louisiana 
Regional Haze SIP which was a partial approval/disapproval \16\ because 
the SIP submittal met some but not all of the applicable requirements 
of sections 169A and 169B of CAA and regional haze provisions in 40 CFR 
51.300 through 51.308. In that action, we disapproved LDEQ's long-term 
strategy because it relied on deficient BART analyses for four non-EGU 
sources and did not reflect appropriate BART emissions reductions from 
those facilities.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 77 FR 39425 (July 3, 2012), available at https://www.regulations.gov in docket EPA-R06-OAR-2008-0510.
    \17\ 77 FR 39426 (July 3, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On August 11, 2016, LDEQ submitted a SIP revision which addressed 
the deficiencies related to SO<INF>2</INF>, NO<INF>X</INF>, and PM BART 
for the four non-EGU facilities: Sid Richardson, Phillips 66 Company-
Alliance Refinery, Mosaic, and Eco Services, LLC. We proposed approval 
of the August 11, 2016 SIP revision for the BART determinations at 
these non-EGU facilities on October 27, 2016.\18\ Based on the BART 
analysis and modeling provided by Sid Richardson, LDEQ concluded that 
the facility was not subject-to-BART because its modeled visibility 
impacts were less than 0.5 deciviews (dv).\19\ We proposed to approve 
this determination for Sid Richardson. We also proposed approval of 
LDEQ's determination that the current controls and operating conditions 
for the subject-to-BART units at the Phillips 66 Company-Alliance 
Refinery constituted SO<INF>2</INF>, NO<INF>X</INF>, and PM BART.\20\ 
We further proposed approval of LDEQ's determination that current 
controls and operating conditions at the Mosaic facility constituted 
SO<INF>2</INF>, NO<INF>X</INF>, and PM BART.\21\ Finally, we proposed 
approval of LDEQ's determination that the current controls and 
operating conditions at the Eco Services, LLC facility constituted 
SO<INF>2</INF> BART.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 81 FR 74750 (October 27, 2016). Proposed approval for the 
BART determinations for non-EGU facilities.
    \19\ A deciview is a haze index derived from calculated light 
extinction, such that uniform changes in haziness correspond to 
uniform incremental changes in perception across the entire range of 
conditions, from pristine to highly impaired. The preamble to the 
Regional Haze Rule provides additional details about the deciview 
(64 FR 35714, 35725, July 1, 1999).
    \20\ On December 5, 2005, Conoco Phillips, the United States of 
America and the State of Louisiana, entered into a consent decree as 
part of the National Refinery Initiative for Alliance. See U.S. et 
al. v ConocoPhillips Company, Civil Action No. H-05-0258 (S.D. Tx). 
EPA approved Louisiana's BART determination that the controls and 
conditions required by the consent decree satisfy SO<INF>2,</INF> 
NO<INF>X</INF>, and PM BART. In order to make the limits enforceable 
for Regional Haze SIP purposes, Phillips 66 and LDEQ entered into to 
an AOC to mirror the limitations imposed by the consent decree.
    \21\ On December 23, 2009, Mosaic entered into a consent decree 
with the EPA, LDEQ and other parties. See U.S. et al. v. Mosaic 
Fertilizer, LLC, Civil Action No. 09-6662 (E.D. La). EPA approved 
LDEQ's BART determination that the controls and conditions required 
by the consent decree satisfy SO<INF>2</INF>, NO<INF>X</INF>, and PM 
BART. In order to make the limits enforceable for regional haze SIP 
purposes, Mosaic and LDEQ entered into to an AOC to mirror the 
limitations imposed by the consent decree.
    \22\ On July 23, 2007, Eco Services entered into a consent 
decree with the EPA, LDEQ and other parties. See U.S. et al. v. 
Rhodia Inc., Civil Action No. 2:07CV134 WL (H.D. In). EPA approved 
LDEQ's BART determination that the controls and conditions required 
by the consent decree satisfy SO<INF>2</INF> BART. In order to make 
the limits enforceable for regional haze SIP purposes, Eco Services 
and LDEQ entered into an AOC to mirror the limitations imposed by 
the consent decree.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On February 10, 2017, LDEQ submitted a SIP revision that addressed 
the deficiencies related to SO<INF>2</INF> and PM BART for the EGU 
facilities. The SIP submittal also relied on CSAPR for O<INF>3</INF> 
season NO<INF>X</INF> to satisfy NO<INF>X</INF> BART for EGU sources. 
Seventeen EGU facilities were identified as BART-eligible and LDEQ 
identified seven of those EGU facilities as being subject-to-BART and 
required to install, operate, and maintain BART controls: Cleco Brame 
Energy Center and six different Entergy facilities (Little Gypsy, 
Ninemile Point, Waterford, Willow Glen, Michoud, and Nelson). On May 
19, 2017, we proposed approval of the February 10, 2017, submittal for 
the BART determinations for these EGU facilities with the exception of 
the portion related to Entergy's Nelson facility.\23\ We also approved 
controls and conditions for two coal-fired units required by a consent 
decree \24\ for Big Cajun II, a BART eligible EGU facility that 
screened out from being subject-to-BART because its modeled visibility 
impacts were less than 0.5 dv. Louisiana Generating, who operates Big 
Cajun II, entered into an agreed order on consent (AOC) with LDEQ to 
make the existing control requirements and maximum daily emission 
limits for SO<INF>2</INF>, NO<INF>X</INF>, PM<INF>2.5</INF> and 
PM<INF>10</INF> from the consent decree permanent and federally 
enforceable for the two coal-fired units. For the facilities subject-
to-BART, we proposed to approve LDEQ's SO<INF>2</INF> and PM BART 
determinations for units at Cleco's Brame Energy Center and at four 
Entergy facilities which included Willow Glen, Little Gypsy, Ninemile 
Point, and Waterford plants. We also proposed to approve the State's 
AOCs for each of these five facilities. LDEQ provided additional 
information from Entergy indicating that the Entergy Michoud units 
would be decommissioned, as reflected in an email dated October 9, 
2017, submitted by LDEQ to supplement its February 2017 SIP revision. 
As a result, we proposed to approve the SIP's finding that 
SO<INF>2</INF>, NO<INF>X</INF>, and PM BART were satisfied for the 
Michoud units since they were no longer in operation. Lastly, we 
proposed to find that the EGU NO<INF>X</INF> BART requirements would be 
satisfied by our determination that LDEQ's participation in CSAPR's 
O<INF>3</INF> season NO<INF>X</INF> program was a permissible 
alternative to source-specific NO<INF>X</INF> BART.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 82 FR 22936 (May 19, 2017). Proposed approval for the BART 
determinations for EGU facilities.
    \24\ On March 6, 2013, Louisiana Generating entered a consent 
decree establishing emission limits for SO<INF>2</INF>, 
NO<INF>X</INF>, and PM BART for several CAA violations at Big Cajun 
II. See U.S. et al. v. Louisiana Generating, LLC, Civil Action No. 
09-100-JJB-RLB (M.D. La.).
    \25\ We could not finalize that portion of the proposed SIP 
approval until we finalized the proposed finding that CSAPR 
continued to be better than BART (81 FR 78954) because finalization 
of that proposal provided the basis for LDEQ to rely on CSAPR 
participation as an alternative to source-specific EGU BART for 
NO<INF>X</INF>.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 38436]]

    On June 20, 2017, LDEQ submitted a SIP revision related to 
Entergy's Nelson facility. On July 13, 2017, we proposed to approve 
that SIP revision along with the remaining portion of the February 2017 
SIP revision that addressed SO<INF>2</INF> and PM BART for the Nelson 
facility.\26\ Specifically, we proposed to approve the LDEQ 
SO<INF>2</INF> and PM BART determinations for Nelson Units 6 and 4, and 
the Unit 4 auxiliary boiler, and the AOC that makes the emission limits 
that represent SO<INF>2</INF> and PM BART permanent and enforceable for 
the purposes of regional haze. On August 24, 2017, we received a letter 
from LDEQ explaining their intent to revise the compliance date in the 
SIP revision for Nelson Unit 6 based on Entergy's request for a three-
year compliance deadline to achieve the proposed SO<INF>2</INF> BART 
limit for Nelson Unit 6. On September 26, 2017, we supplemented our 
proposed approval of the SO<INF>2</INF> BART determination for Nelson 
by proposing to approve the three-year compliance date. On October 26, 
2017, we received LDEQ's final SIP revision addressing Nelson, 
including a final AOC with emission limits and a SO<INF>2</INF> 
compliance date three years from the effective date of the EPA's final 
approval of the SIP revision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 82 FR 32294 (July 13, 2017) Proposed approval for BART 
determination for Nelson Unit 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On December 21, 2017, EPA finalized approval \27\ of the Louisiana 
Regional Haze SIP as meeting all applicable provisions of the CAA and 
EPA regional haze regulations. The final action approved the 2016 SIP 
revision,\28\ and the two 2017 SIP revisions \29\ as supplemented with 
respect to 40 CFR 51.308(e) and addressed all deficiencies identified 
in our two previous June 7, 2012, and July 3, 2012, actions of the 2008 
Louisiana Regional Haze SIP submission. We finalized approval of the 
SO<INF>2</INF>, NO<INF>X</INF>, and PM BART determinations for the 
subject-to-BART non-EGU facilities (Phillips 66 Company-Alliance 
Refinery, Mosaic, and Eco Services, LLC). We finalized our 
determination that the emission limits and operating conditions 
reflected in the AOC's between LDEQ and each non-EGU facility meet the 
BART requirements. We finalized the reliance upon CSAPR for 
NO<INF>X</INF> BART requirements for subject-to-BART EGU facilities. We 
finalized the SO<INF>2</INF> and PM BART determinations for the 
subject-to-BART EGU facilities (Cleco Brame Energy Center and five 
Entergy facilities: Waterford, Willow Glen, Ninemile, Little Gypsy, and 
Nelson). We finalized our determination that the emission limits and 
operating conditions listed in the various AOCs between LDEQ and each 
EGU facility meet the applicable BART requirements. We finalized the 
following BART eligible sources being approved as not subject-to-BART 
because their contribution to visibility impairment fell below the 
contribution threshold selected by the State: Terrebonne Parish 
Consolidated Government Houma Generating Station (Houma), Louisiana 
Energy and Power Authority Plaquemine Steam Plant (Plaquemine), 
Lafayette Utilities System Louis ``Doc'' Bonin Generating Station, 
Cleco Teche, Entergy Sterlington, NRG Big Cajun I, and NRG Big Cajun 
II. In addition, we approved the core requirements for regional haze 
SIPs found in 40 CFR 51.308(d) such as: The requirement to establish 
reasonable progress goals, the requirement to determine the baseline 
and natural visibility conditions, and the requirement to submit a 
long-term strategy; and the BART requirements for regional haze 
visibility impairment with respect to emissions of visibility impairing 
pollutants in 40 CFR 51.308(e). The State fulfilled all outstanding 
obligations with respect to the Louisiana regional haze program for the 
first planning period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 82 FR 60520 (December 21, 2017), available at https://www.regulations.gov/in docket EPA-R06-OAR-2017-0129. EPA's approval 
of these SIP revisions became effective on January 22, 2018.
    \28\ 81 FR 74750 (October 27, 2016). Proposed approval for the 
BART determinations for non-EGU facilities.
    \29\ 82 FR 22936 (May 19, 2017) Proposed approval for the BART 
determinations for EGU facilities and 82 FR 32294 (July 13, 2017) 
Proposed approval for BART determination for Nelson Unit 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Louisiana's Regional Haze Progress Report SIP

    Under 40 CFR 51.308(g), each state was required to submit a 
progress report that evaluates progress towards the RPGs for each Class 
I area within and outside the state which may be affected by emissions 
from within the state. In addition, 40 CFR 51.308(h) requires states to 
submit, at the same time as the progress report, a determination of the 
adequacy of the state's existing regional haze implementation plan.\30\ 
The progress report for the first planning period is due five years 
after submittal of the initial regional haze SIP and must take the form 
of a SIP revision. Louisiana submitted its initial regional haze SIP on 
June 13, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ The Regional Haze Rule requires states to provide in the 
progress report an assessment of whether the current 
``implementation plan'' is sufficient to enable the states to meet 
all established RPGs under 40 CFR 51.308(g). The term 
``implementation plan'' is defined for purposes of the Regional Haze 
Rule to mean any SIP, FIP, or Tribal Implementation Plan. As such, 
the Agency may consider measures in any issued FIP as well as those 
in a state's regional haze plan in assessing the adequacy of the 
``existing implementation plan'' under 40 CFR 51.308(g) and (h).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On March 25, 2021, Louisiana submitted its progress report to the 
EPA in the form of a SIP revision under 40 CFR 51.308. As described in 
further detail in section II of this proposed rulemaking, to address 
the progress report requirements, the State provided: (1) A description 
of the status of measures in the approved regional haze SIP; (2) a 
summary of emission reductions achieved; (3) an assessment of 
visibility conditions for the one Class I area in Louisiana and for one 
Class I area in Arkansas; (4) an analysis tracking the changes in 
emissions from sources and activities within the state; (5) an 
assessment of any significant changes in anthropogenic emissions within 
or outside the state that have limited or impeded progress in reducing 
pollutant emissions and improving visibility; (6) an assessment of 
whether the approved regional haze SIP elements and strategies are 
sufficient to enable the State (and other states with Class I areas 
affected by emissions from the state) to meet all established RPGs; (7) 
a review of the State's visibility monitoring strategy; and (8) a 
determination of adequacy of the existing implementation plan.

II. Evaluation of Louisiana's Regional Haze Progress Report SIP 
Revision

    On March 25, 2021, the EPA received Louisiana's periodic report on 
progress for the State's regional haze SIP in the form of a SIP 
revision. That submission is the subject of this proposed approval. The 
periodic report for the first implementation period assessed visibility 
progress toward the 2018 RPG for the one Class I area in Louisiana and 
also assessed visibility progress for one Class I area in Arkansas 
affected by emissions from Louisiana. The recent data shows visibility 
improvement that is exceeding the visibility goals set for 2018 and 
emission trends indicate that SO<INF>2</INF>, NO<INF>X</INF>, and PM 
emissions have all been decreasing. The EPA is, therefore, proposing to 
approve Louisiana's progress report on the basis that it satisfies the 
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(g) and (h), as explained in further 
detail in each subsequent section.

A. Class I Areas

    Louisiana has one Class I area within its borders that is addressed 
in the progress report: The Breton National

[[Page 38437]]

Wilderness Refuge (Breton).\31\ Visibility impairment at Louisiana's 
Class I area was tracked in units of deciviews, which is related to the 
cumulative sum of visibility impairment from individual aerosol species 
as measured by monitors in the IMPROVE Network. The State used the 
Breton IMPROVE monitor as well as data from a nearby monitoring site, 
the Gulfport SEARCH site, to supplement the Breton monitoring data. 
Through collaboration with the Central Regional Air Planning 
Association (CENRAP), LDEQ worked with the central states to assess 
state-by-state contributions to visibility impairment in specific Class 
I areas in Louisiana and those affected by emissions from Louisiana in 
development of the Regional Haze SIPs for the first planning period. 
LDEQ indicated that one Class I areas outside Louisiana's borders at 
Caney Creek Wilderness area \32\ in southwest Arkansas was impacted by 
emissions from within Louisiana. In the ensuing sections, we discuss 
how the State addressed the progress report requirements under 40 CFR 
51.308(g) and (h) for these Class I areas, and we show our analysis and 
proposed determination as to whether the State satisfied the 
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ The Breton National Wilderness Refuge has a total of 5,000 
acres located thirty miles off the southeast coast of Louisiana. A 
small section of Breton National Wildlife Refuge is located on 
Breton Island which consists of two adjacent islands (north and 
south) with a combined length of about three miles and a width of 
less than one mile. The greater portion of the refuge consists of 
the Chandeleur Islands, an approximately twenty-mile-long crescent 
of land lying north of Breton. Between Breton and Chandeleur are 
more islands owned by the state and managed by the refuge.
    \32\ Caney Creek Wilderness is located in Polk County, Arkansas, 
and covers 14,460 acres on the southern edge of the Ouachita 
National Forest and protects a rugged portion of the Ouachita 
Mountains.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Status of Implementation of Measures

    In its progress report, Louisiana summarized the status of the 
implementation of measures that were relied upon by Louisiana in its 
regional haze plan under 40 CFR 51.308(g) to control visibility 
impairing pollutants at affected class I areas. The control measures 
identified by the State in the progress report are as follows:

<bullet> Non-EGU Controls
<bullet> EGU Controls
<bullet> CAIR and CSAPR
<bullet> Smoke Management Plan (SMP)
<bullet> Additional Federal Measures
1. Non-EGU Controls
    Four non-EGU facilities were identified as BART-eligible and LDEQ 
identified three of them as subject-to-BART and required to install, 
operate, and maintain BART controls. The three non-EGUs identified as 
subject-to-BART were Phillips 66 Company-Alliance Refinery (formerly 
ConocoPhillips), Mosaic Fertilizer LLC--Uncle Sam Plant; Eco-Services 
Operations, LLC (formerly Rhodia). EPA approved the SO<INF>2</INF>, 
NO<INF>X</INF>, and PM BART determinations for these non-EGU facilities 
in the December 21, 2017 final action \33\ along with their associated 
AOC requirements \34\ that made these control measures permanent and 
enforceable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ 82 FR 60520.
    \34\ Phillips 66 AOC No. AE-AOC-14-00211A; Mosaic Fertilizer, 
LLC AOC No. AE-AOC-14-00274A; and Eco Services Operations Corp. AOC 
No. AE-AOC-14-00957.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. Phillips 66--Alliance Refinery
    Phillips 66 installed SO<INF>2</INF>, NO<INF>X</INF>, and 
PM<INF>10</INF> controls \35\ required by the December 5, 2005, consent 
decree \36\ for 22 sources. EPA approved LDEQ's BART determination that 
the controls and conditions required by the consent decree satisfied 
BART. In order to make the limits enforceable for regional haze SIP 
purposes, Phillips 66 and LDEQ entered into AOC No. AE-AOC-14-00211A to 
mirror the SO<INF>2</INF>, NO<INF>X</INF>, and PM<INF>10</INF> limits 
imposed by the consent decree with a compliance date of April 29, 2016. 
The EPA final approval date was December 21, 2017, (82 FR 60520).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ See Table 2: Phillips 66 AOC Conditions (pages 7-9) of the 
State's progress report.
    \36\ U.S. et al. v ConocoPhillips Company, Civil Action No. H-
05-0258 (S.D. Tx).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC
    Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC installed SO<INF>2</INF>, NO<INF>X</INF>, 
PM<INF>10</INF>, and PM<INF>2.5</INF> controls \37\ required by its 
December 23, 2009, consent decree \38\ for thirteen sources that are a 
part of three sulfuric acid operation trains (A, D, and E), of which 
trains A and D were subject-to-BART. EPA approved LDEQ's BART 
determination that the controls and conditions required by the consent 
decree satisfy BART. In order to make the limits enforceable for 
regional haze SIP purposes, Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC and LDEQ entered 
into AOC No. AE-AOC-14-00274A to mirror the SO<INF>2</INF>, 
NO<INF>X</INF>, PM<INF>10</INF>, and PM<INF>2.5</INF> limits imposed by 
the consent decree with a compliance deadline of June 6, 2016. The EPA 
final approval date was December 21, 2017 (82 FR 60520).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ See Table 3: Mosaic AOC Conditions (pages 11-12) of the 
State's progress report.
    \38\ U.S. et al. v. Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC, Civil Action No. 09-
6662 (E.D. La).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Eco Services Operations Corp.
    Eco Services Operations Corp. installed SO<INF>2</INF> controls 
\39\ required by its July 23, 2007, consent decree \40\ for two 
sulfuric acid production trains, Unit 1 and Unit 2 (only Unit 2 is 
subject-to-BART). The consent decree required a scrubber to be 
installed on each of the units to control SO<INF>2</INF> emissions. EPA 
approved LDEQ's BART determination that the controls and conditions 
required by the consent decree satisfy BART. In order to make the 
limits enforceable for regional haze SIP purposes, Eco Services 
Operations Corp. and LDEQ entered into AOC No. AE-AOC-14-00957 to 
mirror the SO<INF>2</INF> limits imposed by the consent decree with a 
compliance deadline of August 8, 2016. The EPA final approval date was 
December 21, 2017 (82 FR 60520).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ See Table 4: Eco Services AOC Conditions (page 14) of the 
State's progress report.
    \40\ U.S. et al. v. Rhodia Inc., Civil Action No. 2:07CV134 WL 
(H.D. In).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. EGU Controls
    Seventeen EGU facilities were identified as BART-eligible and LDEQ 
identified seven of those EGU facilities as being subject-to-BART and 
required to install BART controls: Cleco Brame Energy Center and six 
different Entergy facilities (Little Gypsy, Ninemile Point, Waterford, 
Willow Glen, Michoud, and Nelson). EPA approved the SO<INF>2</INF> and 
PM BART determinations for these EGU facilities in the December 21, 
2017, final action \41\ along with their associated AOC requirements 
that made the control measures permanent and enforceable. In addition, 
as described below, EPA approved emission limits for NRG Big Cajun II, 
a BART eligible EGU source that screened out of being subject-to-BART.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ 82 FR 60520 (December 21, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. NRG Big Cajun II
    NRG Big Cajun II installed SO<INF>2</INF>, NO<INF>X</INF>, 
PM<INF>10</INF>, and PM<INF>2.5</INF> controls \42\ required by its 
March 6, 2013, consent decree \43\ for two BART-eligible EGU coal-fired 
sources (Unit 1 and Unit 2). The consent decree required Louisiana 
Generating to refuel coal-fired Unit 2 to natural gas and install and 
continuously operate dry sorbent injection (DSI) at Unit 1 while 
maintaining a thirty-day rolling average SO<INF>2</INF> emission rate 
of no greater than 0.380 lb/MMBtu by no later than April 15, 2015. In 
addition to requiring DSI, the consent decree required Louisiana 
Generating to retire, refuel, repower, or retrofit Unit 1 by no later

[[Page 38438]]

than April 1, 2025. Louisiana Generating is required to notify EPA of 
which option it will select to comply with this condition no later than 
December 31, 2022. LDEQ's modeling demonstrated that, based on these 
existing controls and enforceable emission limits, Big Cajun II 
contributes less than 0.5 dv at impacted Class I areas, and therefore 
the facility is not subject to BART. NRG Big Cajun II and LDEQ agreed 
to make the consent decree limits enforceable for regional haze SIP 
purposes, and entered into an AOC (unnumbered) to mirror the 
SO<INF>2</INF>, NO<INF>X</INF>, PM<INF>10</INF>, and PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
limits imposed by the consent decree with a compliance deadline of 
February 9, 2017. The EPA final approval date was December 21, 2017 (82 
FR 60520).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ See Table 5: Sources subject-to-BART (page 15) of the 
State's progress report.
    \43\ U.S. et al v. Louisiana Generating, LLC, Civil Action No. 
09-100-JJB-RLB (M.D. La.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Cleco--Brame Energy Center
    The Cleco Brame Energy Center addressed SO<INF>2</INF> and 
PM<INF>10</INF> BART controls for two subject-to-BART EGU boilers, 
Nesbitt 1 and Rodemacher 2 units. The Nesbitt 1 boiler was permitted to 
burn natural gas or oil and did not have any air pollution controls 
installed. Cleco committed to burn only natural gas until a five-factor 
BART analysis for the fuel-oil-firing scenario was submitted to LDEQ 
and included in an EPA approved SIP revision. To make the prohibition 
on fuel-oil usage at this unit enforceable, Cleco and LDEQ entered an 
AOC (unnumbered) that established enforceable SO<INF>2</INF> and 
PM<INF>10</INF> limits, consistent with the exclusive use of natural 
gas for the Nesbitt 1 boiler. The Rodemacher 2 boiler has an enhanced 
DSI system for SO<INF>2</INF> control. The Rodemacher 2 boiler also has 
an electrostatic precipitator (ESP) and a fabric filter baghouse 
downstream of the DSI system for PM control. These controls offer the 
necessary controls for SO<INF>2</INF> and PM<INF>10</INF> BART for the 
Rodemacher 2 boiler. Therefore, emission limits were established 
consistent with these controls and included in the AOC to make the 
limits enforceable for regional haze purposes. The AOC also allowed the 
Rodemacher 2 boiler to meet the SO<INF>2</INF> and PM<INF>10</INF> 
emissions limits by conversion to natural gas only, unit retirement, or 
another means of achieving compliance with the emission limits. The 
compliance deadline of the AOC was February 9, 2017.\44\ The EPA final 
approval date was December 21, 2017 (82 FR 60520).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ See Table 6: Brame Summary of AOC Conditions (page 17) of 
the State's Progress Report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Entergy--Willow Glen
    Entergy addressed SO<INF>2</INF> and PM<INF>10</INF> BART controls 
for multiple EGU boiler units subject-to-BART (Units 2, 3, 4, 5, and 
the Auxiliary Boiler) at the Willow Glen facility. Each was permitted 
to burn fuel oil, but Entergy agreed to an AOC (unnumbered) signed 
February 9, 2017, to require a five-factor BART analysis for the fuel-
oil firing scenario to be submitted to LDEQ and included in an EPA 
approved SIP revision before fuel-oil combustion would occur at the 
Willow Glen facility. No additional controls for the Willow Glen units 
would be required when burning natural gas. EPA approved LDEQ's 
determination that SO<INF>2</INF> and PM<INF>10</INF> BART for Willow 
Glen was addressed by this operational scenario.\45\ However, as of May 
31, 2016, Willow Glen was decommissioned, and the Title V operating 
permit was rescinded on June 6, 2018. Emissions have ceased since 2016, 
so the facility remains in compliance with the AOC which had a 
compliance deadline of February 9, 2017. The EPA final approval date 
was December 21, 2017 (82 FR 60520).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ 82 FR 22943 (May 19, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

d. Entergy--Little Gypsy
    Entergy addressed SO<INF>2</INF> and PM<INF>10</INF> BART controls 
for three subject-to-BART EGU boiler units at its Little Gypsy facility 
(Units 2, 3, and the Auxiliary Boiler). The Unit 2 boiler was permitted 
to burn natural gas as its primary fuel, and No. 2 and No. 4 fuel oil 
as secondary fuels. The Unit 3 boiler burns natural gas but was also 
permitted to burn fuel oil. The auxiliary boiler for Unit 3 is 
permitted to burn only natural gas. While no additional controls were 
determined to be necessary when burning natural gas, Entergy agreed to 
switch to ultra-low sulfur diesel (ULSD) fuel oil. In order to make the 
use of ULSD enforceable for regional haze purposes, LDEQ and Entergy 
entered into an AOC with a compliance deadline of February 13, 2017, 
limiting fuel oil to ULSD. The EPA final approval date was December 21, 
2017 (82 FR 60520).
e. Entergy--Ninemile Point
    Entergy addressed SO<INF>2</INF> and PM<INF>10</INF> BART controls 
for two subject-to-BART EGU boiler units at its Ninemile Point facility 
(Units 4 and 5). The Unit 4 boiler burned primarily natural gas and No. 
2 and No. 4 fuel oil. The Unit 5 boiler burned primarily natural gas 
and No. 2 and No. 4 fuel oil. While no additional controls were 
determined to be necessary when burning natural gas, Entergy agreed to 
switch to ULSD fuel oil. In order to make the use of ULSD enforceable 
for regional haze purposes, LDEQ and Entergy entered into an AOC 
(unnumbered) with a compliance deadline of February 9, 2017, limiting 
fuel oil to ULSD with a sulfur content of 0.0015%. The EPA final 
approval date was December 21, 2017 (82 FR 60520).
f. Entergy--Waterford 1 and 2
    Entergy addressed SO<INF>2</INF> and PM<INF>10</INF> BART controls 
for three subject-to-BART EGU boiler units at its Waterford 1 & 2 
Generating Plant facility (Units 1 and 2 and the auxiliary boiler). The 
Unit 1 boiler is an EGU boiler that burned primarily natural gas and 
No. 6 fuel oil as its secondary fuel. The Unit 2 boiler is an EGU 
boiler that burned primarily natural gas and No. 6 fuel oil as its 
secondary fuel. The auxiliary boiler burns only natural gas. While no 
additional controls were determined to be necessary when burning 
natural gas, Entergy agreed to switch to fuel oil with a lower sulfur 
content. In order to make the lower sulfur content fuel enforceable for 
regional haze purposes, LDEQ and Entergy entered into an AOC with a 
compliance deadline of February 9, 2017, limiting fuel oil to a sulfur 
content of 1% or less. The EPA final approval date was December 21, 
2017 (82 FR 60520).
g. Entergy--Michoud
    Entergy addressed SO<INF>2</INF>, NO<INF>X</INF>, and PM BART 
controls for two subject-to-BART EGU boiler units at its Michoud 
Generating Plant (Units 2 and 3). In a letter dated August 10, 2016, 
Entergy elected to permanently retire Units 2 and 3 effective June 1, 
2016. Subsequently, the Title V Operating Permit was modified to remove 
these units effective January 31, 2019. All SO<INF>2</INF>, PM, and 
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions from Units 2 and 3 at Michoud have ceased 
after 2016 and the boilers are no longer in operation. The EPA final 
approval date was December 21, 2017 (82 FR 60520).
h. Entergy--Nelson
    Entergy addressed SO<INF>2</INF> and PM<INF>10</INF> BART controls 
for three subject-to-BART boiler units at its Roy S. Nelson steam 
electric power generating facility (Unit 4 and 6 Boilers, and Unit 4 
Auxiliary Boiler). The required SO<INF>2</INF> and PM<INF>10</INF> BART 
controls preclude fuel-oil combustion at Unit 4 and the Unit 4 
Auxiliary boiler. To make the prohibition on fuel-oil usage enforceable 
for regional haze purposes, Entergy and LDEQ entered into an AOC 
(unnumbered) that established that before fuel-oil firing is allowed to 
take place at Unit 4 and the auxiliary boiler,

[[Page 38439]]

a revised BART determination must be promulgated for SO<INF>2</INF> and 
PM<INF>10</INF> for the fuel oil firing scenario through a Federal 
Implementation Plan (FIP) or a SIP revision approved by the EPA that is 
federally enforceable. For the Unit 6 boiler, the facility accepted 
SO<INF>2</INF> and PM<INF>10</INF> limits consistent with the 
utilization of coal with a lower sulfur content.\46\ These limits are 
in addition to existing controls for PM<INF>10</INF> and 
NO<INF>X</INF>: ESP with flue gas conditioning for PM<INF>10</INF> 
control, and Separated Overfire Air Technology (SOFA) with Low 
NO<INF>X</INF> Concentric Firing System (LNCFS) for NO<INF>X</INF> 
control. The AOC (unnumbered) compliance deadline for the Unit 4 boiler 
was on October 26, 2017, and for the Unit 6 boiler was on January 21, 
2021. The EPA final approval date was December 21, 2017 (82 FR 60520).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ See Table 7: Nelson Summary of AOC Limits (page 23) of the 
State's progress report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. CAIR and CSAPR
    In 2005, the EPA issued CAIR,\47\ which participating states could 
rely on in lieu of BART for EGUs.\48\ CAIR was designed to address 
power plant pollution transported from one state to another via a cap-
and-trade system to reduce SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> emissions 
as the target pollutants. LDEQ's 2008 regional haze SIP revision relied 
on participation in CAIR as an alternative to meeting the source 
specific EGU BART requirements for SO<INF>2</INF> and 
NO<INF>X</INF>.\49\ In December 2008, shortly after LDEQ submitted its 
SIP to EPA, the D.C. Circuit remanded CAIR to the EPA, leaving existing 
CAIR programs in place while directing the EPA to replace them with a 
new rule.\50\ So although CAIR was remanded, CAIR remained in effect 
and sources in Louisiana continued to comply with the state and federal 
requirements associated with CAIR. In 2011, EPA promulgated CSAPR to 
replace CAIR.\51\ In 2012, EPA amended the Regional Haze Rule to allow 
CSAPR participation as an alternative to source-specific SO<INF>2</INF> 
and NO<INF>X</INF> BART for EGUs on a pollutant-specific basis.\52\ 
CSAPR requires 28 eastern states to reduce power plant emissions that 
contribute to O<INF>3</INF> and PM<INF>2.5</INF> pollution in other 
states. The rule requires reductions in O<INF>3</INF> season 
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions that cross state lines for certain states, 
including Louisiana, under the O<INF>3</INF> requirements, and 
reductions in annual SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> emissions for 
certain states, not including Louisiana, under the PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
requirements. LDEQ established reliance upon CSAPR for O<INF>3</INF> 
season NO<INF>X</INF> as an alternative to meet the NO<INF>X</INF> BART 
requirements for their EGU sources. The EPA set emission budgets for 
each state covered by CSAPR. Allowances are allocated to affected 
sources based on these state emission budgets.\53\ Since promulgating 
the use of CSAPR as an alternative to source-specific BART for EGUs, 
the EPA has promulgated an update to the CSAPR program with more 
stringent budgets.\54\ The CSAPR update revised the O<INF>3</INF> 
season NO<INF>X</INF> budget for Louisiana's EGUs to 18,639 tons 
NO<INF>X</INF> in 2017 and beyond.\55\ Participation in CSAPR for 
O<INF>3</INF> season NO<INF>X</INF> is federally enforceable under 40 
CFR 52.38.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ See 70 FR 25161 (May 12, 2005).
    \48\ See 70 FR 39104, 39139 (July 6, 2005).
    \49\ See 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4) (2006).
    \50\ North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896, 901 (D.C. Cir. 2008), 
modified, 550 F.3d 1176, 1178 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
    \51\ 76 FR 48207 (August 8, 2011).
    \52\ While that rulemaking also promulgated FIPs for several 
states to replace reliance on CAIR with reliance on CSAPR as an 
alternative to BART, it did not include a FIP for Louisiana. (see 77 
FR 33642, 33654).
    \53\ The rule provides flexibility to affected sources, allowing 
sources in each state to determine their own compliance path. This 
includes adding or operating control technologies, upgrading or 
improving controls, switching fuels, and using allowances. Sources 
can buy and sell allowances and bank (save) allowances for future 
use as long as each source holds enough allowances to account for 
its emissions by the end of the compliance period.
    \54\ See 81 FR 74504. On October 26, 2016, we finalized an 
update to CSAPR that addresses the 1997 O<INF>3</INF> NAAQS portion 
of the remand as well as the CAA requirements addressing interstate 
transport for the 2008 O<INF>3</INF> NAAQS.
    \55\ CSAPR has been subject to extensive litigation, and on July 
28, 2015, the D.C. Circuit issued a decision generally upholding 
CSAPR but remanding without vacating the CSAPR emissions budgets for 
a number of states. Louisiana's O<INF>3</INF> season NO<INF>X</INF> 
budgets were not included in the remand. EME Homer City Generation 
v. EPA, 795 F.3d 118, 138 (D.C. Cir. 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Smoke Management Plan (SMP)
    The progress report states that the State is also relying on a 
Smoke Management Program (SMP) that it adopted (effective July 1, 
2012). LDEQ implements controlled and open-burning practices within the 
state. The Louisiana SMP was designed to assure that prescribed fires 
are planned and executed in a manner designed to minimize the impacts 
from smoke produced by prescribed fires. The programs in this measure 
are generally designed to limit increases in emissions rather than to 
reduce existing emissions.
5. Additional Federal Measures
    The State of Louisiana also considered in its progress report the 
following ongoing pollution control programs for continuing emission 
reductions as supplements to the regional haze plan:
    <bullet> Permitting to ensure compliance wth New Source Performance 
standards (NSPS) and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants (NESHAP).
    <bullet> Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) 
requirements.
    <bullet> National Petroleum Refinery Initiative.
    <bullet> Mobile Emissions Regulations.
    <bullet> National Petroleum Refinery Initiative.
6. EPA's Conclusion on the Status of Implementation of Measures
    The EPA proposes to find that the State has adequately addressed 
the applicable provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g) regarding reporting 
the status of implementation of measures in its implementation plan. 
The State's progress report documented the status of all measures 
included in its regional haze SIP and it also described additional 
measures that came into effect since the State's regional haze SIP was 
completed, including various federal measures. All major control 
measures were identified in each SIP revision and the strategy behind 
each control was explained. The State included a summary of the 
implementation status associated with each measure and adequately 
outlined the compliance timeframe for all controls.

C. Emissions Reductions From Implementation of Measures

    The State presented emission data in its progress report that 
provided a summary of the emission trends and reductions achieved 
through the implementation of the BART controls that were required to 
be installed, operated, and maintained in the regional haze SIP to 
control the visibility impairing pollutants contributing to haze. The 
State provided combined annual emission trends of SO<INF>2</INF>, 
NO<INF>X</INF>, PM<INF>2.5</INF>, and PM<INF>10</INF> for all eleven 
subject-to-BART EGU and non-EGU facilities included in section II.B of 
this action from 2000 to 2019.\56\ The State also provided figures 
depicting the annual emission trends applicable to each subject-to-BART 
facility.\57\ The overall combined annual emissions for each pollutant 
trended downward from the baseline since 2008. The State quantified the 
emission reductions achieved by comparing the five-year average from 
the baseline (2004-2008) to the five-year average at the end of the

[[Page 38440]]

first implementation period (2015-2019).\58\ The five-year average 
emission reductions achieved since the baseline from the subject-to-
BART controls included 13,195 tons NO<INF>X</INF>, 41,264 tons 
SO<INF>2</INF>, 1,367 tons PM<INF>10</INF>, and 356 tons 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> (see Table 1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ See Figure 12: Combined Annual Emissions from Major 
Stationary BART Sources (page 26) of the progress report.
    \57\ See Figures 1 to 11 of the progress report (pages 10 to 
23).
    \58\ See Table 8 of the progress report (page 26).

          Table 1--Five Year Average Emission Reductions From BART Sources for 2004-2008 and 2015-2019
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Year                                  NOX          PM10        PM2.5         SO2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2004-2008 Average...........................................       37,532        3,782        2,009       70,902
2015-2019 Average...........................................       24,338        2,415        1,652       29,638
                                                             ---------------------------------------------------
    Change..................................................      -13,195       -1,367         -356      -41,264
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the emission reductions from BART controls, the 
CSAPR update revised the O<INF>3</INF> season NO<INF>X</INF> budget for 
Louisiana units to 18,639 tons NO<INF>X</INF> in 2017 and beyond. The 
2019 actual O<INF>3</INF> season emission for Louisiana totaled 17,751 
tons NO<INF>X</INF> for 88 different sources.\59\ The State noted that, 
along with the replacement of CAIR with CSAPR, there have been many 
ongoing air pollution programs that supplement the regional haze 
program since submittal of Louisiana's Regional Haze SIP in 2008. These 
programs include adoption of a SMP that was effective July 1, 2012, 
NSPS and NESHAP permitting, PSD regulatory requirements, the National 
Petroleum Refinery Initiative, mobile emissions regulations, and the 
National Petroleum Refinery Initiative. Louisiana noted that these 
additional federal air pollution programs are anticipated to result in 
even greater emission reductions that could result in further 
visibility improvement than the programs in place when the 2008 
Louisiana Regional Haze SIP revision was submitted to the EPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ Source: U.S. EPA Clean Air Market Division www.epa.gov/airmarkt/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA proposes to conclude that the State has adequately 
addressed the applicable provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g) regarding a 
summary of emission reductions achieved for visibility impairing 
pollutants. Overall, the State demonstrated the emission reductions 
achieved for the major contributing visibility impairing pollutants in 
the State for the first implementation period. Emissions of 
SO<INF>2</INF>, NO<INF>X</INF>, and PM, the top three main contributors 
to regional haze in Louisiana, have all decreased from the 2002 
baseline levels through 2019. Overall visibility conditions have 
improved as a result of these reductions together with decreases from 
outside of the state.

D. Visibility Conditions and Changes

    Louisiana included in its progress report the annual average 
visibility from 2001 to 2018 for the twenty percent best (least 
impaired) and twenty percent worst (most impaired) days at Breton 
National Wilderness Refuge.\60\ Although visibility conditions have 
varied from year-to-year, the progress report showed that Breton has 
displayed an overall improvement in visibility since 2001.\61\ LDEQ 
reported that Breton showed improved visibility from the 2000 to 2004 
baseline \62\ during the worst days for the most current period (2014 
to 2018).\63\ Breton area also showed improvement from the baseline on 
the twenty percent best days and satisfied the goal of no visibility 
degradation for the first implementation period. The progress report 
showed that the visibility at Breton during the 2014-2018 period was 
5.02 dv below the 2000-2004 baseline for the twenty percent worst days 
and 1.31 dv below the baseline for the twenty percent best days as 
reflected in Tables 2 and 3 below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ The most and least impaired days in the regional haze rule 
refers to the average visibility impairment (measured in dv) for the 
twenty percent of monitored days in a calendar year with the highest 
and lowest amount of visibility impairment, respectively, averaged 
over a five-year period (see 40 CFR 51.301). In this report, when we 
refer to ``best days'' we mean ``least impaired'' and when we refer 
to ``worst days'' we mean ``most impaired.''
    \61\ See Table 15: Visibility Index at Breton of the progress 
report (pages 31).
    \62\ Note that the period for establishing baseline visibility 
conditions is 2000-2004. The Breton IMPROVE monitor did not meet the 
data capture requirements of the Regional Haze Rule for the 2000-
2004 monitoring period; however, data from a nearby monitoring site, 
the Gulfport SEARCH site, was used to supplement the Breton 
monitoring data to establish the baseline.
    \63\ Progress reports for the first implementation period used 
specific terms to describe time-periods. ``Baseline visibility 
conditions'' refers to conditions during the 2000 to 2004 time-
period. ``Current visibility conditions'' refers to the most recent 
five-year average data available at the time the State submitted its 
progress report for public review. ``Past five years'' refers to the 
five-year average previous to the five years used for ``current 
visibility conditions.''

                 Table 2--Visibility at Breton National Wilderness for Twenty Percent Best Days
                                                [Five-year avg.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Baseline  (2000-   Most recent      Most recent
                         Class I area                            2004)  (dv)      (2014-2018)     minus baseline
                                                                                      (dv)             (dv)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Breton National Wilderness Refuge............................           13.12            11.81            -1.31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* A negative sign indicates a reduction from the baseline.


[[Page 38441]]


                 Table 3--Visibility at Breton National Wilderness for Twenty Percent Worst Days
                                                [Five-year avg.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Baseline  (2000-   Most recent      Most recent
                         Class I area                            2004)  (dv)      (2014-2018)     minus baseline
                                                                                      (dv)             (dv)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Breton National Wilderness Refuge............................           25.73            20.71            -5.02
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* A negative sign indicates a reduction from the baseline.

    When comparing the 2018 RPG of 22.51 dv with the observed five-year 
visibility trends, Breton is realizing more visibility improvement than 
needed to meet the 2018 RPG. The average visibility condition at Breton 
during the 2014 to 2018 period for the twenty percent worst days was 
1.8 dv below the 2018 RPG. Therefore, the EPA proposes to conclude that 
the State has adequately addressed the applicable provisions under 40 
CFR 51.308(g) with respect to visibility conditions at Louisiana's 
Class I area.

E. Emission Tracking

    In its progress report, the State presented National Emission 
Inventory (NEI) total combined anthropogenic emissions for the criteria 
pollutants for 2002, 2008, 2011, 2014, and 2017. The baseline 2000 to 
2004 period was represented by the 2002 NEI. The most recent NEI 
inventory available at the time of development of the progress report 
to represent current emissions was from the draft 2017 NEI. The overall 
total combined anthropogenic emissions of CO, SO<INF>2</INF>, 
NH<INF>3</INF>, PM, NO<INF>X</INF>, and VOC were depicted in a stacked 
bar chart \64\ in the progress report and showed a total emission 
decrease from the 2002 base year period to the most recent 2017 
inventory year. The State noted, however, that there was a slight 
increase in emissions in 2008 in the chart that could be attributed to 
normal growth that preceded the implementation of controls from the 
2008 Regional Haze SIP. A more significant increase in combined 
anthropogenic emissions occurred in 2011. The State attributed that 
increase to a change in methodology using the EPA Oil and Gas tool for 
estimating emissions from oil and gas production facilities. That tool 
was developed for the 2011 NEI and used for all subsequent NEIs. A 
downward trend was shown from 2011 to 2017, which the State made as the 
focus of the progress report. The State noted that despite the 
significant increase in 2011, the 2014 and 2017 NEI total combined 
anthropogenic emissions reduced to lower than the emissions in 2008 
when the original SIP was submitted. That trend reflects the 
implementation of controls from the Louisiana Regional Haze SIP. Also, 
the 2017 NEI emissions were well below the 2002 NEI baseline totals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \64\ See Figure 13: NEI Anthropogenic Emissions Totals (page 27) 
of the progress report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order to further evaluate the effectiveness of the 2018 Regional 
Haze SIP for the most recent five-year period, LDEQ compared 
categorized anthropogenic emission inventories for 2011 and 2017.\65\ 
The pollutants inventoried included SO<INF>2</INF>, NO<INF>X</INF>, 
NH<INF>3</INF>, VOC, CO, PM<INF>2.5</INF>, and PM<INF>10</INF>. The 
inventories were categorized for all major visibility-impairing 
pollutants under major anthropogenic source groupings. The 
anthropogenic source categorization included point and non-point 
sources, on and non-road mobile sources, and area sources. A reduction 
in the total emissions for each of the criteria pollutants was observed 
over the six-year period from 2011 to 2017 as seen in Table 4. The 
pollutants of concern for haze in Louisiana, SO<INF>2</INF>, 
NO<INF>X</INF>, and PM<INF>10</INF> were collectively reduced by nearly 
505,305 tons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ See Tables 9 to 11 (page 28) of the progress report.

                           Table 4--Comparison of 2011 to 2017 Anthropogenic Emissions
                                                     [tpy] *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Inventory year             VOC         NOX        PM2.5       PM10         NH3         SO2         CO
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2011........................     426,115     558,235     125,749     395,370      56,742     274,588   1,195,493
2017........................     260,746     331,115      78,455     252,843      45,959     141,930     788,471
                             -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    [Delta] 2011-2017.......    -165,369    -227,120     -47,294    -145,527     -10,783    -132,658    -407,022
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Table 11 of the progress report SIP submittal showed incorrect emission reduction totals for 2011 and 2017,
  but the corrected totals calculated from Tables 9 and 10 are shown in this table.

    A similar comparison of the 2017 NEI emissions and the 2018 
projected emissions provides a look at the change in actual emissions 
to what was originally projected for 2018 for the purpose of Regional 
Haze SIP development. As shown in Table 5 of this action, the total NEI 
actual emissions from all criteria pollutants was less. The NEI actual 
emission reductions surpassed the projected emissions for VOC, 
NO<INF>X</INF>, PM<INF>2.5</INF>, SO<INF>2</INF>, and CO significantly. 
The total PM<INF>10</INF> emissions were not reduced as dramatically as 
projected, but the State noted that was likely impacted by the increase 
in oil and gas emissions unaccounted for at the time of the 2008 
Regional Haze SIP revisions. The actual 2017 NEI emissions for 
NO<INF>X</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF> totaled 515,805 tons less than what 
was projected for 2018. That difference far outweighs the higher actual 
tons of PM<INF>10</INF> emissions than projected for PM<INF>10</INF> 
because sulfate and nitrate particulate from SO<INF>2</INF> and 
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions make up 83% of the composition of the light 
extinction contributing to haze at Breton.\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ See Table 16: Total Light Extinction and Composition at 
Breton (page 33) of the progress report.

[[Page 38442]]



                  Table 5--Comparison of 2017 NEI Actual Emissions and 2018 Projected Emissions
                                                      [tpy]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Inventory               VOC         NOX        PM2.5       PM10         NH3         SO2         CO
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2017 NEI actual Emissions...     260,746     331,115      78,455     252,843      45,959     141,930     788,471
Projected 2018 Emissions....     399,975     535,080      84,581      99,933      56,839     453,770   1,367,027
                             -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    [Delta] 2017 NEI--          -139,229    -203,965      -6,126     152,910     -10,880    -311,840    -578,556
     Projected 2018.........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA proposes to conclude that the State has adequately 
addressed the applicable provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g). The State 
tracked changes in emissions by category across the entire emission 
inventory and the results showed that the emissions from 
SO<INF>2</INF>, NO<INF>X</INF>, and PM, the main contributors of 
regional haze in Louisiana, have all decreased since the 2008 SIP 
submittal. The 2011 to 2017 analysis included the most recent five-year 
period for which data was available. These data indicated that overall 
emissions of all visibility impairing pollutants reduced. 
SO<INF>2</INF>, NO<INF>X</INF>, and PM emissions have continued to show 
a downward trend since 2011, which supports that the controls included 
as part of the 2008 Regional Haze long-term strategy were effective in 
reducing emissions. The EPA concludes that the State presented an 
adequate analysis tracking emission trends for the key visibility 
impairing pollutants across Louisiana.

F. Assessment of Changes Impeding Visibility Progress

    The State indicated in the progress report \67\ that there were no 
significant changes in anthropogenic emissions that limited or impeded 
progress in reducing pollutant emissions and improving visibility at 
the State's one Class I area that were not already contemplated in the 
2008 Louisiana Regional Haze SIP and subsequent revisions. Breton 
National Wilderness Refuge has shown overall downward trends in 
visibility impairment as a result of the implemented controls in 
Louisiana and other states. The State's current analysis of emission 
reductions and categorized inventories presented in the progress report 
showed that no significant changes in emissions within the state 
occurred to further impede or adversely affect the visibility 
improvement at Breton. It was also determined that additional emission 
reductions from other states were not necessary to address visibility 
impairment at Breton for the first implementation period. No 
significant emission changes from sources outside of Louisiana were 
identified that limited or impeded progress in reducing pollutant 
emissions and improving visibility at Breton. EPA proposes to conclude 
that the State has adequately addressed the applicable provisions under 
40 CFR 51.308(g) regarding assessing any changes that could impede 
visibility progress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ See Pages 41-42 of the progress report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

G. Assessment of Current Strategy To Meet RPGs

    In its progress report, the State assessed the strategies in the 
Louisiana Regional Haze SIP and subsequent revisions. The State 
determined that the strategies were sufficient to enable Louisiana and 
other states with Class I areas affected by emissions from Louisiana to 
meet all established RPGs. Louisiana's Regional Haze SIP revisions,\68\ 
which EPA finalized approval on December 21, 2017,\69\ outlined control 
measures to improve visibility by reducing anthropogenic emissions of 
SO<INF>2</INF>, PM<INF>10</INF>, PM<INF>2.5</INF>, and NO<INF>X</INF>. 
Specific regional haze BART controls and enforceable limits were 
imposed on eleven major stationary sources (three non-EGU sources and 
eight EGU sources) and resulted in a decrease in the target pollutants. 
Actual point source emissions from 2002-2017 were reduced as follows; 
SO<INF>2</INF> emissions were reduced by 61% (214,227 tons); 
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions were reduced by 55% (177,384 tons); 
PM<INF>10</INF> emissions were reduced by 34% (10,212 tons); and 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> emissions were reduced by 23% (9,458 tons). Currently, 
Breton National Wilderness Refuge is achieving greater visibility 
improvement than its 2018 RPG.\70\ Based on available monitored data, 
Breton is realizing more visibility improvement than needed to meet its 
2018 RPG. The current visibility trendline is 1.8 dv below the 
respective 2018 RPG of 22.51 dv from the baseline conditions and 
visibility is continuing to improve.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ See October 27, 2016, proposed approval (81 FR 74750) for 
the BART determinations for non-EGU facilities; the May 19, 2017, 
proposed approval (82 FR 22936) for the BART determinations for EGU 
facilities, and the July 13, 2017, proposed approval (82 FR 32294) 
for BART determination for Nelson Unit 6.
    \69\ See December 21, 2017, final approval (82 FR 60520) of 
these SIP revisions which became effective on January 22, 2018.
    \70\ See Table 15 of the progress report (page 31).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    LDEQ acknowledged in the progress report that sources in Louisiana 
have the potential to impact one Class I area in Arkansas, Caney Creek 
Wilderness Area. No specific emissions from Louisiana sources were 
identified in Arkansas' plan that would prevent or inhibit reasonable 
progress at Caney Creek or any other mandatory federal Class I areas in 
Arkansas. Emissions from Louisiana were below the 2018 projected levels 
relied on for planning by Arkansas for the first planning period. 
Arkansas stated in its August 8, 2018, Regional Haze SIP Revision that 
Arkansas is already on track to meet or exceed the established 
reasonable progress goals for Caney Creek.\71\ When comparing the 
revised 2018 RPG with the observed five-year visibility trend, Caney 
Creek is already realizing more visibility improvement than needed to 
meet the revised 2018 RPG. The visibility index at Caney Creek during 
the 2012-2016 period (the most current five-year period at the time of 
the submittal) was 20.64 dv, which is 1.83 dv below the 2018 revised 
RPG of 22.47 dv, and visibility is continuing to improve.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \71\ See Figure 17: Caney Creek Reasonable Progress Goals (page 
42) of the progress report. See spreadsheet, visibility-
progress.xlsx, provided at https://www.adeq.state.ar.us/air/planning/sip/regional-haze.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA proposes to conclude that the State has adequately 
addressed the applicable provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g) to assess 
the current strategy to meet the RPGs. The State has assessed the 
implementation plan in place at the time that its progress report was 
submitted, and we find that the implementation plan as it currently 
exists is sufficient to enable the state of Louisiana and other nearby 
states to meet their RPGs. The realized and planned controls and 
reductions that form the current strategy for the first implementation 
period are sufficient to meet the RPGs as established in the Louisiana 
Regional Haze SIP (including all revisions). Breton National Wilderness 
Refuge in Louisiana is currently meeting the 2018 RPG for the twenty 
percent worst days and shows

[[Page 38443]]

that the goal of no visibility degradation for the twenty percent best 
days is also being achieved. Caney Creek Wilderness area in Arkansas is 
also on track to achieve its visibility reduction goals.

H. Review of Visibility Monitoring Strategy

    The monitoring strategy for regional haze in Louisiana relies upon 
participation in the IMPROVE \72\ network, which is the primary 
monitoring network for regional haze nationwide. The IMPROVE network 
provides a long-term record for tracking visibility improvement or 
degradation. LDEQ currently relies on data collected through the 
IMPROVE network to satisfy the regional haze monitoring requirement as 
specified in 40 CFR 51.308(d)(4) of the Regional Haze Rule. In 
Louisiana, there is one active IMPROVE site monitor (AQS ID: 22-071-
9000) located in Orleans County and represents the 5,000 acres of the 
Breton National Wilderness Refuge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \72\ See 64 FR 35715 (July 1, 1999). Data from IMPROVE show that 
visibility impairment caused by air pollution occurs virtually all 
the time at most national parks and wilderness areas. The average 
visual range in many Class I areas (i.e., national parks and 
memorial parks, wilderness areas, and international parks meeting 
certain size criteria) in the western United States is 100-150 km, 
or about one-half to two-thirds of the visual range that would exist 
without anthropogenic air pollution. In most of the eastern Class I 
areas of the United States, the average visual range is less than 30 
km, or about one-fifth of the visual range that would exist 
underestimated natural conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the progress report, LDEQ reported observed visibility data 
annually for the Breton National Wilderness Refuge to the EPA from the 
IMPROVE dataset.\73\ LDEQ tracked the annual visibility index at Breton 
from 2001 to 2018 and reported five-year visibility trends for 
comparison of baseline, current, and natural conditions. LDEQ continues 
to track these visibility trends at Breton and identified no future 
changes in this network. Baseline and natural conditions for visibility 
progress comparisons were made using the 2008 SIP revision, when 
available. Otherwise, baseline \74\ and natural conditions values were 
also from the IMPROVE dataset.\75\ The Breton IMPROVE monitor also 
quantified aerosol species that were related to visibility impairment. 
The aerosol species collected at Breton for regional haze purposes 
included ammonium sulfate, ammonium nitrate, organic mass, elemental 
carbon, fine soil, coarse mass, and sea salt. The major cause of 
reduced visibility at Breton was identified as sulfate particles, 
formed principally from SO<INF>2</INF>.\76\ The EPA proposes to 
conclude that the State has adequately addressed the applicable 
provision under 40 CFR 51.308 for a visibility monitoring strategy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \73\ http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/DataWarehouse/IMPROVE/Data/SummaryData/RHR_2018/SIA_group_means_12_19_2p.csv.
    \74\ The State noted that the Breton IMPROVE monitor did not 
meet the data capture requirements of the Regional Haze Rule for the 
2000-2004 baseline monitoring period, so data from a nearby 
monitoring site, the Gulfport SEARCH site, was used to supplement 
the Breton monitoring data to establish the baseline.
    \75\ http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/IMPROVE/Data/NaturalConditions/NaturalConditionsII_Format2_v2.xls.
    \76\ See Figure 15 and Tables 16 through 23 (pages 32-40) of the 
progress report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Determination of Adequacy of Existing Implementation Plan

    Louisiana provided a negative declaration stating that the 
Louisiana Regional Haze SIP is adequate and no further substantive 
revisions are needed at this time. Since the original Louisiana 
Regional Haze SIP submission in 2008, the State submitted three 
subsequent SIP revisions to fulfill its commitment to address all of 
the deficiencies identified in our two previous June 7, 2012, and July 
3, 2012, actions on the 2008 SIP. Specific controls and enforceable 
limits were imposed on eleven major stationary sources that resulted in 
a significant decrease in visibility impairing pollutants. These 
controls, approved by EPA, included BART reductions on eight EGU 
sources and three non-EGU sources. When considering the SIP 
requirements that we approved in these SIP revisions along with the 
visibility and emission information provided in the progress report; it 
is clear that the implementation plan is adequate to meet its emission 
reductions and visibility goals for the first implementation period. 
Current visibility conditions in Louisiana have improved beyond the 
2018 RPGs. Visibility has also improved at the one Arkansas Class I 
areas affected by Louisiana sources. The current emission trends show 
that SO<INF>2</INF>, NO<INF>X</INF>, and PM emissions (the main 
contributors to regional haze in Louisiana) have all been decreasing 
since the baseline period. The emission reductions necessary for 
meeting the established RPGs were achieved and exceeded the established 
goals. Because the SIP will ensure the control of SO<INF>2</INF>, 
NO<INF>X</INF>, and PM emission reductions relied upon by Louisiana and 
other states in setting their RPGs, the EPA is proposing to approve 
Louisiana's finding that there is no need for revision of the existing 
implementation plan to achieve the RPGs for the Class I areas in 
Louisiana and in nearby states impacted by Louisiana sources. We, 
therefore, propose to approve Louisiana's negative declaration under 40 
CFR 51.308(h) that no further substantive revisions are needed.

J. Consultation With Federal Land Managers

    The Regional Haze Rule requires the State to provide the designated 
Federal Land Managers (FLMs) with an opportunity for in-person 
consultation at least sixty days prior to holding any public hearings 
on a SIP revision for the first implementation period. Louisiana 
invited the FLMs to comment on its draft progress report on October 29, 
2020, which was sixty days prior to the public review comment period on 
December 28, 2020. No comments were received from the Federal Land 
managers. The EPA proposes to conclude that Louisiana has adequately 
addressed the applicable FLM provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(i).

III. EPA's Proposed Action

    The EPA is proposing to approve Louisiana's regional haze five-year 
progress report SIP revision (submitted March 25, 2021) as meeting the 
applicable regional haze requirements set forth in 40 CFR 51.308(g). 
The EPA is also proposing to approve Louisiana's determination of 
adequacy under 40 CFR 51.308(h) that no further substantive revisions 
are needed. Lastly, the EPA is proposing to find that Louisiana 
fulfilled its requirement in 40 CFR 51.308(i) regarding state 
coordination with FLMs.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP 
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable 
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in 
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, 
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this 
action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal 
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those 
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
    <bullet> Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to 
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 
2011);
    <bullet> Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);

[[Page 38444]]

    <bullet> Is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
    <bullet> Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
    <bullet> Does not have federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
    <bullet> Is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
    <bullet> Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
    <bullet> Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the CAA; and
    <bullet> Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to 
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental 
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under 
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian 
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has 
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian 
country, the proposed rulemaking does not have tribal implications and 
will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or 
preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 
November 9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Best Available 
Retrofit Technology, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, 
Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Regional haze, Sulfur 
dioxide, Visibility, Volatile organic compounds.

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: July 15, 2021.
David Gray,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2021-15395 Filed 7-20-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>